Wideangels do show distorsion, but one learns to handle it, and frame
pictures so it's not too obvious. The angle of view is not that much more
than a 28mm, but you will find yourself needing that little extra. I just
mean, if you can get a 24mm fairly cheap it might be worth it in the long
run.
Personally I'd say go with only a 50mm for a year or two, and spend your
money (as someone already said) on film in stead. There's no better starting
kit in the world than an OM1 with a 50/1.8. Then make a few bucks and get
that wideangle, learn to use it, make some more bucks and get a short tele.
Again, just my 2c
Henrik Dahl
> Hello Everyone,
>
> What would be better for me, a 24mm, 28mm or 35mm? I am going to be in
> the bush quite a bit, but I also imagine I'll do other things eg. people. I
> know the 24 has some distortion but is the (I dont know the real term) angle
> of view that much more than the 28? I would like to try and stay away from
> zooms. Maybe I should get a 24 and 35? Also, is there a BIG difference
> between f/2.8 and f/2? I know its whole stop but is it that important to
> have it?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> JOSH
>
> PS> What exactly is Bokeh.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|